funorbfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Discussion of rule breaking.
We've recently had a lot of discussion which seems to condone, or at least turn a blind eye to, rule breaking. (For example here and here.) Since the start of the wiki, I believe we've had the policy that encouraging rule breaking is not acceptable in the main namespace. However, we don't appear to have a policy about the discussion of rule breaking on talk pages, and in other namespaces. Do people think we need a policy on this, and if so what should it be? Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue | Talk 21:18, September 13, 2009 (UTC) :Right now, I don't know. However, I believe it is important that we do come up with a firm policy at the end of this, and stick to it, whatever it is. We allow it, or we ban it - either way, we need a firm response to any mention people make of "oh, but you broke the rules to do that..." JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 21:32, September 13, 2009 (UTC) ::I think we should follow Jagex rules at all times. As I said here, I don't think we will be trusted by them if we're talking about hacking. This should've been a policy long ago. I also would like to vote for the blocking of Randomvirtuo if this gets passed. [[User:Killr833|'Killr']]Talk 21:38, September 13, 2009 (UTC) :::I don't think it would be fair to block Randomvirtuo retrospectively. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue | Talk 21:40, September 13, 2009 (UTC) ::::If he continues after this is passed, we should. [[User:Killr833|'Killr']]Talk 21:43, September 13, 2009 (UTC) :I don't think we should permit discussion of information obtained via rule-breaking for two reasons: firstly, our relationship with Jagex; secondly, the simple issue of verifiability. However, the policy shouldn't be worked in terms of "discussion of rule-breaking"; the activity we want to restrict is specifically promotion of rule-breaking, instruction in how to break the rules (distinguish from explanation of what the rules are), and information obtained by rule-breaking. OrbFu 08:51, September 14, 2009 (UTC) ::I do think, that we need such a policy or Jagex will start to dislike this site soon. All these discussions about hacking information just encourages other peoples to try such things, too. Erzmeister 09:34, September 14, 2009 (UTC) :::If they have a problem with it, they're more than able to tell us about it. I'm inclined to think they don't really know much about talk pages, though. I agree with OrbFu's point about verifiability: We can't get it first-hand from a reliable source (no-one would risk being identified) so we can't even judge the individual who obtained it. It's mostly pointless for this reason. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 10:32, September 14, 2009 (UTC) I won't deny that I've never broken rules; my account has been muted/banned before. And it ain't fun, so just in case there's any rule-breaking content I'm not gonna be part of it. =P 19118219 Talk 12:41, September 14, 2009 (UTC) If anything is voted against posting spoilers from achievements and other hidden stuff, i will simply stop posting publicly thoses and will only give infos privately to some friends out of here. This wiki looked nice which is why i wished to contribute by posting accurate spoilers very early to help people out. As Killr833 stated i won't mind if i get banned afterward because I will have no reason for posting here again if this policy get applied. In anyway i will wait until this debate is closed before continuing giving away spoilers should any game or update from Jagex be adding some more secret contents in Funorb. Randomvirtuo 13:42, September 17, 2009 (UTC) Draft Proposal I think we're all agreed that we need a policy about this. How does the following sound? :The FunOrb Wiki follows the Rules of FunOrb. :This means that content promoting rule-breaking should not be posted, and should be removed on sight. This includes the Talk: and User: namespaces, as well as the main namespace. :Also, information obtained by rule-breaking should not be provided, as it cannot be verified. Feel free to amend this if you feel it could be improved. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue | Talk 16:04, September 14, 2009 (UTC) :This is a good start, but maybe we should put in some snippets from the Rules? [[User:Killr833|'Killr']]Talk 21:18, September 14, 2009 (UTC) ::I'd capitalise Talk: and User: but otherwise looks good. OrbFu 22:07, September 14, 2009 (UTC) :::What about this: :The FunOrb Wiki follows the Rules of FunOrb. :This means that content promoting rule-breaking or instructing others on the methods should not be posted, and should be removed on sight. This includes the Talk:, Forum:, Blog:, User:, and Video: namespaces (among others), and especially the main namespace. Users who have been alerted of this policy on their talk page and post such information again will be banned for at least 7 days. :Also, information obtained only by rule-breaking should not be provided, as it cannot be verified. Information obtained from observing which achievements other players have (through the Achievements Online system) is completely legitimate and will be allowed. :::I know 7 days is a little longish, but it sounds almost 5 times as threatening as 3 days. Besides, I doubt that many users (after being warned) will repost after they've been alerted, threatened, and they've seen how quickly it's reverted. But this will discourage them more. TimerootT • C • 23:35, September 14, 2009 (UTC) ::::I disagree strongly with the concept of a fixed penalty. "Will most likely have action taken against their account" is better. We can easily work on a case-by-case basis as to who should be banned for perhaps 1 hour to cool off, and who shouldn't be let back because they will never grow up. We don't need to be threatening; we need to be informative. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 06:08, September 15, 2009 (UTC) :::::I agree with Vimes about the penalty. I think the rest is better than my draft though. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue | Talk 19:57, September 15, 2009 (UTC) ::::::I just took a more thorough look at the Rules of FunOrb, and I think the Advertising Websites rule can be slightly relaxed here, on Talk: and User: pages. Of course if the website is somehow inappropriate, it is unacceptable. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue | Talk 18:36, September 16, 2009 (UTC) I can't say I agree with this. If jagex has not talked about it as an issue than don't fix what isn't broken. 20:43, September 15, 2009 (UTC) Well, they break all the rules on OrbMore and they keep it as a registered Fansite... :| Such as FMods giving info they shouldn't, people saying they've been picked to be Mods when they aren't allowed to say.. God, I hate OrbMore. Q Kue Q 21:07, September 15, 2009 (UTC) :Dont worry about OrbMore, its a page run by small children. Erzmeister 21:11, September 15, 2009 (UTC) Thanks, Erz. There's even a thread on there, dedicated to "You Xfering!? :O". Argh, now I know what the term "Get your blood boiling" really means.. OrbMore's children need to grow up and get lives. Sorry if I'm flaming a bit too much, Quartic, you can edit it out if you feel like it. It's just that I really, really don't like it. Anyway, to get back on topic, Jagex kind of has to keep us on the approved Fansites list since we're the official Wikia.. Then again, we URL Manipulate.. Q Kue Q 21:19, September 15, 2009 (UTC) :At Orbmore, the admins actually do their best to stop serious rule breaking, however they can't control who joins the site and what they put on Orbmore's forums. Not alot of rule breaking actually goes on there, but like any fansite there will always be people who try to ruin things for others. You might see rulebreaking there from time to time, but it doesn't mean the admins are letting it stay. The thread dedicated to Erz was actually locked once one of the admins became aware of it, but the reason so many people had agreed with the thread is because, to put it blunty, many people there hate him, especially after he spammed our chatbox as much as he could for several weeks. I'm not totally sure about the forum mods giving out the information they do, but I'm sure what they're telling wouldn't be against the rules, as they know what would happen if Jagex caught them. You're allowed to say if you've been picked to become a mod, but it's not encouraged as people might report you for impersonation. Other than that, rule breaking there seems to be pretty under control, and like I said, the admins there try, I mean it's not like they just leave it. ¥ 22:42, September 15, 2009 (UTC) ::We don't edit other people's comments, Q. But you might try simply not flaming. It's really not difficult...Oh, also, we're not a wikia, we're a wiki; and they don't "have" to keep us on the approved list at all. Why would they? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 09:21, September 16, 2009 (UTC) :::Originally, this was a WikiCity. Since Wikia changed their name, it could be argued that this is a Wikia. Plus, I'm looking at and ad that says "Design your own Wikia". TimerootT • C • 23:24, September 16, 2009 (UTC) ::::Naice, they got their adverts wrong. Your point? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 10:03, September 17, 2009 (UTC) Jagex kind of has to keep us on the approved Fansites list since we're the official Wikia No. We're not official. If this was true then RuneScape wiki would be on the list. [[User:Killr833|'Killr']]Talk 10:35, September 17, 2009 (UTC) Retrospective application A thought occurs. I've presumed that once the policy is formalised we will apply it retrospectively by removing infringing comments from talk pages (although without issuing any penalties, which Quartic correctly pointed out would be unfair). Two questions: # Is this the consensus viewpoint? # If so, how should we do it? I'm inclined to say that we shouldn't leave a "Discussion removed: see FunOrb Wiki:Policy on discussion of rule breaking" template, but I can see arguments both ways. (Pro template: explains why something isn't there to someone who half-remembers it; con: points random newcomers to content which we deliberately removed). OrbFu 12:00, September 17, 2009 (UTC) :Um. No. Discussions don't get edited or removed (except for archiving). JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 16:31, September 17, 2009 (UTC) ::As a general rule, however we do remove vandalism and stuff like that, so we could extend it to this stuff too. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue | Talk 17:04, September 17, 2009 (UTC) :::Vandalism isn't "discussion". I will strongly oppose deletion of any discussion, rule-breaking or not. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 18:50, September 17, 2009 (UTC) ::::Archiving will generally hide things from general view (who really checks archives?). JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 18:55, September 17, 2009 (UTC) :::::Sometimes I wish that you could make "invisible" pages, that no-one except admins could view. If we could store the archived discussions there, they wouldn't be deleted, but no-one would get to view them unless they had good reason. But as far as I'm aware, that doesn't exist... Other than writing it in a page and deleting the page. :P I feel it would be better to replace the comments with a template. People could still view them through the history page, and I bet even fewer people would look there than in an archive. And you can't use the search function on an old revision. TimerootT • C • 23:12, September 17, 2009 (UTC) ::Is that a personal preference or are you basing it on some policy? I can't find a detailed Wikia policy on editing talk pages, but the Wikipedia one supports removal of "prohibited content". I'm also puzzled as to why you don't seem to have a problem with Quartic's proposed policy wording, which would seem to me to support retrospective action ("should be removed on sight"). OrbFu 14:09, September 21, 2009 (UTC) Policy Page It seems clear to me that there is a consensus to create this policy. I have created FunOrb Wiki:FunOrb Rules, but it could do with expansion, and there might still be a few minor issues that need to be pinned down. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue | Talk 19:33, October 1, 2009 (UTC)